Η δημοσιότητα της κύρωσης ή η κύρωση της δημοσιότητας
Νο. 24 - Σειρά: Δίκαιο και Κοινωνία στον 21ο Αιώνα. Ιδρυτής Σειράς: Γ. Παπαδημητρίου. Διεύθυνση σειράς: Θ. Κ. Παπαχρίστου, Λ. Μήτρου, Τ. Βιδάλης, Θ. Ξηρός

Συγγραφέας: Μήτρου Λίλιαν

Η δημοσιοποίηση της κύρωσης που επιβάλλεται ή απειλείται εναντίον του παραβάτη ποινικών ή άλλων κανόνων είναι αναμφίβολα διαχρονικό φαινόμενο, αντανακλώντας και τις αντιλήψεις περί τιμωρίας που επικρατούν στις εκάστοτε κοινωνίες. Το ζήτημα επανέρχεται με ένταση στη συζήτηση: Η δημοσιοποίηση των ονομάτων των παραβατών, των φυγόστρατων ή των οφειλετών δεν συνιστά απλώς έναν – αναπόφευκτο; - περιορισμό των δικαιωμάτων της ιδιωτικότητας και της προστασίας προσωπικών δεδομένων προς εκπλήρωση (του δικαιώματος) της ενημέρωσης. Αποτελεί συνειδητή επιλογή διαπόμπευσης του παραβάτη, ώστε να επιτευχθούν σκοποί που συνδέονται με δημόσιες πολιτικές, όπως η καταπολέμηση του εγκλήματος ή της φοροδιαφυγής ή η δημιουργία (αισθήματος) ασφάλειας και φορολογικής συνείδησης. Αν η δημοσιοποίηση του παραβάτη τροφοδοτεί το αίσθημα δικαιοσύνης του κοινού, οι επιπτώσεις του στιγματισμού για τα δικαιώματα και την ίδια τη ζωή του παραβάτη ή του υπόπτου είναι ιδιαίτερα σοβαρές. Ιδίως σε μία εποχή που το Διαδίκτυο επιτρέπει την ευρύτατη διαθεσιμότητα μιας πληροφορίας και τη διατήρησή της εις το διηνεκές, η δημοσιότητα της κύρωσης ισοδυναμεί με την κύρωση της δημοσιότητας. Μία κύρωση που είναι αμφίβολο εάν τελεί σε σχέση αναλογίας προς τα δικαιώματα πληροφόρησης και το δημόσιο συμφέρον που επιδιώκεται και εάν εναρμονίζεται με τις αρχές ενός δημοκρατικού κράτους δικαίου και ιδίως με τον σεβασμό της αξίας του ανθρώπου.

Εκδήλωση με θέμα: Προσβολή δικαιωμάτων διανοητικής ιδιοκτησίας στο διαδίκτυο - Ζητήματα ευθύνης

Μακεδονική Ένωση Εμπορικού Δικαίου

Εκδήλωση με θέμα: Προσβολή δικαιωμάτων διανοητικής ιδιοκτησίας στο διαδίκτυο - Ζητήματα ευθύνης

Ομιλητής: Γιώργος Μπαμπέτας, Λέκτορας Νομικής Σχολής ΔΠΘ

Τετάρτη 7 Μαρτίου 2012 και ώρα 8:30 μμ

Καφέ-Χώρος εκδηλώσεων The Barrister, Φράγκων 3, Θεσσαλονίκη

Insight into the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI)

The Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) is a nonprofit consortium of over 200 US law schools. Non-US law schools, law firms, business schools, paralegal programs and individuals can also join CALI to support its mission.

History
After a few years as a faculty project, The Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction was incorporated as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) in 1982 by the University of Harvard's and University of Minnesota's law schools. CALI continued to gradually develop computer-assisted tutorials and add more law school members through the 80s and into the early 90s.

In 1991 the organization hosted the first annual Conference for Law School Computing®. With the development of CALI Author® software, lesson creation was taken out of the hands of computer programmers and into those of the faculty whom write the lessons. Aided by the new authoring software and the revolution of the internet as a viable platform, the library of lessons and their usage increased to over 100 and over 100,000, respectively, by the 1996-1997 school year. That same year, CALI began distributing the CALI Excellence for the Future Award® to the top student in each class at participating member schools.

By the turn of the century nearly all US law schools were members of CALI. CALI began looking for new and innovative ways to serve its membership, exploring ideas such as distance education, eBooks, blogging and podcasting, and open education tools. In 2007-2008 school year, students for the first time ran CALI Lessons over 1,000,000 total times in the school year.

Today students at over 200 member law schools still run over 1,000,000 lessons each year. The Library of Lessons is on pace for 1,000 lessons very soon. It continues to host the annual CALI Conference, distribute CALI Awards, and work on new and innovative projects like eLangdell® (open eBooks for legal education) and Classcaster® (a blogging platform for members).

Visit the homepage os CALI at: http://www.cali.org/

CALI offers: a) webinars, so e.g., Topics in Digital Law practice: http://tdlp.classcaster.net/
b) Classcaster®. It is CALI's free blogging and podcasting network. It allows professors to create free class blogs and post educational materials. It includes support for creating and posting recorded lectures.

c) CALI Author: it is a lesson authoring software. You can it to edit lessons or to create completely new ones.

d) CALI's eLangdell Press offers free, open eBooks for legal education. Visit the eLangdell's website: http://elangdell.cali.org/

CALI also organises conferences: http://www.cali.org/CALI-Conference, provides awards: http://www.cali.org/awards and lessons: http://www.cali.org/lesson

5th Workshop on Legal Informatics and Legal Information Technology (LIT 2012)

in conjunction with
15th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2012)
Vilnius, Lithuania
May 21 or 22 or 23, 2012


Deadline for submissions: March 16 (11:59pm CET), 2012


The Legal Informatics and Legal Information Technology (LIT) Workshop is an annual event which gathers people interested in broadly understood Legal Informatics and its applications. The LIT 2012 meeting will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania as part of the 15th International Conference on Business Information Systems. As a continuation of previous editions, we invite people dealing with different domains closely related to legal matter and Information Technology.

The 5th Legal Informatics and Legal Information Technology Workshop will be a multi-disciplinary, one-day workshop that will bring together practitioners and researchers to investigate challenges and opportunities in the emerging trends on the verge of law and IT. The workshop will examine vital issues, including law-related business processes, legal ontologies, description frameworks, discussing new research and innovative applications in Law, Information Technology as well as Insurance. The workshop is receptive to all papers dealing with any topic in these interdisciplinary domains.

Topics

Alternative & online Dispute Resolution
Computational models for legal reasoning
Information extraction & categorization of legal documents
Information Technology & Crime Prevention
Information Technology & Dispute Resolution
Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining in Law
Knowledge management in the legal domain
Law & Future Internet technologoies
Legal argumentation
Legal aspects of BIS
Legal aspects of IT
Legal discourse modeling and legal reasoning
Legal electronic agents
Legal Expert Systems
Legal ontologies - creation, use & lifecycles
Legal reasoning and its computer representation
Natural language processing in law
Question answering retrieval for law and governmental services
Risk management & trust in law
Semantic indexing of legal documents
Semantic Web technologies in law and e-government
Specialized knowledge representation and logics for law
Specific legal domains appliances (systems in civil, tax, commercial, insurance law)
Text mining and knowledge extraction in law
Validation of legal knowledge
Submission

Long papers: max. 12 pages
Work-in-progress reports: max. 6 pages

Papers must be submitted in PDF format according to Springer LNBIP template available from http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-6-791344-0.

The authors should include a 100-word abstract at the beginning of the paper, which clearly presents the achievement or contribution of the paper. Furthermore 4-7 keywords should describe the content of the submission.

Submission system is available at http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=lit2012.

Papers approved for presentation at LIT 2012 will be published in BIS 2012 workshop post-conference proceedings, as a volume in Springer's Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP) series. The volume will be edited by Witold Abramowicz. BIS 2012 Workshops proceedings will be distributed to BIS 2012 participants in October 2012 by regular mail.
Workshop format


All authors of accepted papers as well as other participants will be asked to read accepted papers abstracts before the workshop (papers will be available on-line in advance) to facilitate discussion.
Workshop participants will be also invited to take part in the BIS conference and other BIS workshops.
Important dates

March 16 (11:59pm CET), 2012 - submission deadline for papers
April 15, 2012 - notification of acceptance/rejection
April 30, 2012 - submission of final papers
May 21 or 22 or 23, 2012 - the workshop
Organizers

Poznan University of Economics, Department of Information Systems
Chairs

Erich Schweighofer
Piotr Stolarski
John Zeleznikow
Program Committee (to be extended)

Emilia Bellucci, Victoria University, Australia
Daniele Bourcier, CNRS-CERSA Paris, France
Tania Cristina D'Agostini Bueno, Presidente da Diretoria Executiva IJURIS, Brasil
Tom van Engers, Leibniz Center for Law, Netherlands
Rafal Morek, University of Warsaw, Poland
Marta Poblet, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain
Erich Schweighofer, University of Vienna, Austria
Ken Satoh, National Institute of Informatics and Sokendai, Japan
Piotr Stolarski, Poznan University of Economics, Poland
Andrew Stranieri, University of Ballarat, Australia
John Zeleznikow, Victoria University, Australia
Tomasz Żurek, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Poland

CJEU decision on temporary reproduction

The CJEU clarified certain aspects of the exemption for certain acts of temporary reproduction in its decisions of 17 January in case C-302/10. In more particular, the reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

This reference has been made in the context of proceedings between Infopaq International A/S (‘Infopaq’) and Danske Dagblades Forening (‘DDF’) concerning the dismissal of Infopaq’s application for a declaration that it was not required to obtain the consent of the rightholders for acts of reproduction of newspaper articles using an automated process consisting in the scanning of those articles and their conversion into a digital file followed by electronic processing of that file.

The Danish Court referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘1. Is the stage of the technological process at which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they constitute “an integral and essential part of a technological process”, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29?

2. Can temporary acts of reproduction be an “integral and essential part of a technological process” if they consist of manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed from a printed medium into a digital medium?

3. Does the concept of “lawful use”, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, include any form of use which does not require the copyright holder’s consent?

4. Does the concept of “lawful use”, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, include the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles and subsequent processing of the reproduction, for use in the business’s summary writing, even where the rightholder has not given consent to those acts, if the other requirements in the provision are satisfied?

Is it relevant to the answer to the question whether the 11 words are stored after the data capture process is terminated?

5. What criteria should be used to assess whether temporary acts of reproduction have “independent economic significance”, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 if the other requirements in the provision are satisfied?

6. Can the user’s efficiency gains from temporary acts of reproduction be taken into account in assessing whether the acts have “independent economic significance”, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29?

7. Can the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles and the subsequent processing of the reproduction, be regarded as constituting “certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation” of the newspaper articles and “not unreasonably [prejudicing] the legitimate interests of the rightholder”, pursuant to Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29, if the requirements in Article 5(1) of the directive are satisfied?

Is it relevant to the answer to the question whether the 11 words are stored after the data capture process is terminated?’

The Court (Third Chamber) ruled that:


1) Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a ‘data capture’ process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings,

– fulfil the condition that those acts must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, notwithstanding the fact that they initiate and terminate that process and involve human intervention;

– fulfil the condition that those acts of reproduction must pursue a sole purpose, namely to enable the lawful use of a protected work or a protected subject-matter;

– fulfil the condition that those acts must not have an independent economic significance provided, first, that the implementation of those acts does not enable the generation of an additional profit going beyond that derived from the lawful use of the protected work and, secondly, that the acts of temporary reproduction do not lead to a modification of that work.

2) Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, if they fulfil all the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a ‘data capture’ process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, must be regarded as fulfilling the condition that the acts of reproduction may not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.


See: Johan Axhamn, (Faculty of Law, Stockholm University), Infopaq II – The CJEU elucidates some aspects of the exemption for certain acts of temporary reproduction, available at: http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2012/02/07/infopaq-ii-%E2%80%93-the-cjeu-elucidates-some-aspects-of-the-exemption-for-certain-forms-of-temporary-reproduction/

Media coverage of celebrities’ private lives

The European Court of Human Rights delivered on Febraury, 7, two Grand Chamber judgments, in the cases of Axel Springer AG v. Germany (application no. 39954/08) and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) (application nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08),which are both final.

In the case Axel Springer AG, the Court held, by a majority, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case Von Hannover (no. 2), the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.

Both cases concerned the publication in the media of articles and, in the second case, of
photos depicting the private life of well-known people.

In the case Axel Springer AG, the daily newspaper Bild, which is owned by the applicant company, in 2004 published a front-page article about X, a well-known television actor, being arrested in a tent at the Munich beer festival for possession of cocaine. The article was supplemented by a more detailed article on another page and was illustrated by three pictures of X. It mentioned that X, who had played the role of a police superintendent in a popular TV series since 1998, had previously been given a suspended prison sentence for possession of drugs in July 2000. The newspaper published a second article in July 2005, which reported on X being convicted and fined for illegal possession of drugs after he had made a full confession. Immediately after the first article appeared, X brought injunction proceedings against Springer with the Hamburg Regional Court, which granted his request and prohibited any further publication of the article and the photos. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

In November 2005, Hamburg Regional Court prohibited any further publication of almost the entire article, on pain of penalty for non-compliance, and ordered Springer to pay an agreed penalty. The court held in particular that the right to protection of X’s personality rights prevailed over the public’s interest in being informed, even if the truth of the facts related by the daily had not been disputed. The case had not concerned a serious offence and there was no particular public interest in knowing about X’s offence. The judgment was upheld by the Hamburg Court of Appeal and, in December 2006, by the Federal Court of Justice. In another set of proceedings concerning the second article, about X’s conviction, the Hamburg Regional Court granted his application on essentially the same grounds as those set out in its judgment on the first article. The judgment was upheld by the Hamburg Court of Appeal and, in June 2007, by the Federal Court of Justice. In March 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider constitutional appeals lodged by the applicant company against the decisions.

Subsequently, Axel Springer AG complained to the ECHR, under Article 10, about the injunction prohibiting any further publication of the articles.

In its judgement, the ECHR held that the restrictions imposed on the company had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the actor’s private life and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.

The Court based its decision on the consideration that Springer’s interest in publishing the articles was solely due precisely to the fact that it was a wellknown actor who had committed an offence – which would not have been reported on if committed by a person unknown to the public – it underlined that the actor had been arrested in public at the Munich beer festival. The actor’s expectation that his private life would be effectively protected had furthermore been reduced by the fact that he had previously revealed details about his private life in a number of interviews.

Furthermore, it noted that nothing suggested that Springer had not undertaken a balancing exercise between its interest in publishing the information and the actor’s right to respect for his private life. Given that Springer had obtained confirmation of the information conveyed by the prosecuting authorities, it did not have sufficiently strong grounds for believing that it should preserve the actor’s anonymity. It could therefore not be said to have acted in bad faith. In that context, the Court also noted that all the information revealed by Springer on the day on which the first article appeared was confirmed by the prosecutor to other magazines and to television channels. It also noted that the articles had not revealed details about the actor’s private life, but had mainly concerned the circumstances of his arrest and the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him.

In the case of Von Hannover (no. 2), Princess Caroline has been trying to prevent the publication of photos of her private life in the press since the early 1990s. Two series of photos, published in 1993 and 1997 respectively in German magazines had been the subject of three sets of proceedings before the German courts. In particular, leading judgments of the Federal Court of Justice of 1995 and of the Federal Constitutional Court of 1999 dismissed her claims. Those proceedings were the subject of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in Caroline von Hannover v. Germany (no. 59320/00) of 24.06.2004, in which the Court held that the court decisions had infringed Princess Caroline’s right to respect for her private life under Article 8.

Relying on that judgment, Princess Caroline and Prince Ernst August subsequently brought several sets of proceedings before the civil courts seeking an injunction against the publication of further photos, showing them during a skiing holiday and taken without their consent, which had appeared in the German magazines Frau im Spiegel and Frau Aktuell between 2002 and 2004.

The Federal Court of Justice granted Princess Caroline’s claim as regards the
publication of two of the photos in dispute in a judgment of 6 March 2007 (no. VI ZR
51/06) – stating that they did not contribute to a debate of general interest - it
dismissed her claim as regards another photo which had appeared in February 2002 in
Frau im Spiegel. Further, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed Princess Caroline’s constitutional complaint, rejecting in particular the allegation that the German courts had disregarded or taken insufficient account of the Court’s case-law. On 16 June 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court declined, without giving reasons, to consider further constitutional complaints brought by the applicants concerning the same photo and a similar photo published in Frau aktuell.

The ECHR held that the German courts had carefully balanced the right of the publishing companies to freedom of expression against the right of the applicants to respect for their private life. In doing so, they had explicitly taken into account the Court’s case law, including its 2004 judgment in Caroline von Hannover v. Germany. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 8.

The Court helda that the fact that the German Federal Court of Justice had assessed the information value of the photo in question – the only one against which it had not granted an injunction – in the light of the article that was published together with it could not be criticised under the Convention. The Court could accept that the photo, in the context of the article, did at least to some degree contribute to a debate of general interest. The German courts’ characterisation of Prince Rainier’s illness as an event of contemporary society could not be considered unreasonable. It was worth underlining that the German courts had granted the injunction prohibiting the publication of two other photos showing the applicants in similar circumstances, precisely on the grounds that they were being published for entertainment purposes alone.

Furthermore, irrespective of the question to what extent Caroline von Hannover assumed official functions on behalf of the Principality of Monaco, it could not be claimed that the applicants, who were undeniably very well known, were ordinary private individuals. They had to be regarded as public figures. The German courts had concluded that the applicants had not provided any evidence that the photos had been taken in a climate of general harassment, as they had alleged, or that they had been taken secretly. In the circumstances of the case, the question as to how the pictures had been taken had required no more detailed examination by the courts, as the applicants had not put forward any relevant arguments in that regard.

Proposal for a Directive in criminal matters

On 25.2.1012 the EU Commission submitted the Proposal for a Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data [COM(2012) 10 final]. This proposal is part of the legislative package for the reform of data protection legislation (see Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of the data protection rules).

The proposal is based on Article 16(2) TFEU, which is a new, specific legal basis introduced by the Lisbon Treaty for the adoption of rules relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Union law, and the rules relating to the free movement of such data. The proposal aims to ensure a consistent and high level of data protection in this field, thereby enhancing mutual trust between police and judicial authorities of different Member States and facilitating the free flow of data and co-operation between police and judicial authorities.

Explanation of the Proposal:

Article 1 defines the subject matter of the Directive, i.e. rules relating to processing of personal data for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal offences, and sets out the Directive's two-fold objective, i.e. to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data while guaranteeing a high level of public safety, and to ensure the exchange of personal data between competent authorities within the Union.

Article 2 defines the scope of application of the Directive. The scope of the Directive is not limited to cross-border data processing but applies to all processing activities carried out by 'competent authorities' (as defined in Article 3(14)) for the purposes of the Directive. The Directive applies neither to processing in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law, nor to processing by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, which is subject to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and other specific legislation.

Article 3 contains definitions of terms used in the Directive. While some definitions are taken over from Directive 95/46/EC and Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, others are modified, complemented with additional or newly introduced elements. New definitions are those of ‘personal data breach’, ‘genetic data’ and ‘biometric data’, ‘competent authorities’ (based on Article 87 TFEU and Article 2(h) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA) and, of a 'child’, based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 4 sets out the principles relating to processing of personal data reflecting Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 3 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, while adjusting them to the particular context of this Directive.

Article 5 requires the distinction, as far as possible; between personal data of different categories of data subjects. This is a new provision, included neither in Directive 95/46/EC nor in Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, but which had been proposed by the Commission
in its original proposal for the Framework Decision23. It is inspired by the Council of Europe's Recommendation No R (87)15. Similar rules already exist for Europol and Eurojust.

Article 6 on different degrees of accuracy and reliability reflects principle 3.2 of Council of Europe Recommendation No R (87)15. Similar rules, as also included in the Commission's proposal for the Framework Decision, exist for Europol.

Article 7 sets out the grounds for lawful processing, when necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority based on national law, to comply with a legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person or to prevent an immediate and serious threat to public security. The other grounds for lawful processing in Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC are not appropriate for the processing in the area of police and criminal justice.

Article 8 sets out a general prohibition of processing special categories of personal data and the exceptions from this general rule, building on Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC and adding genetic data, following ECtHR case law Article 9 establishes a prohibition of measures based solely on automated processing of personal data if not authorised by law providing appropriate safeguards, in line with Article 7 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 10 introduces the obligation for Member States to ensure easily accessible and understandable information, inspired in particular by principle 10 of the Madrid Resolution on international standards on the protection of personal data and privacy28, and to oblige controllers to provide procedures and mechanisms for facilitating the exercise of the data subject's rights. This includes the requirement that the exercise of the rights shall be in principle free of charge.

Article 11 specifies the obligation for Member States to ensure the information towards the data subject. These obligations are building on Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 95/46/EC,without separate articles differentiating whether the information is collected from the data
subject or not, and enlarging the information to be provided. It lays down exemptions from the obligation to inform, when such exemptions are proportionate and necessary in a democratic society for the exercise of the tasks of competent authorities (inspired by Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 17 Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA).

Article 12 provides the obligation for Member States to ensure the data subject's right of access to their personal data. It follows Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC, adding new elements for the information of the data subjects (on the storage period, their rights to rectification, erasure, or restriction and to lodge a complaint).

Article 13 provides that Member States may adopt legislative measures restricting the right of access if required by the specific nature of data processing in the areas of police and criminal justice, and on the information of the data subject on a restriction of access, following Article 17(2) and (3) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 14 introduces the rule that in cases where direct access is restricted, the data subject must be informed on the possibility of indirect access via the supervisory authority, which should exercise the right on their behalf and must inform the data subject on the outcome of its verifications.

Article 15 on the right to rectification follows Article 12(b) of Directive 95/46/EC, and, as regards the obligations in case of a refusal, Article 18(1) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 16 on the right to erasure follows Article 12(b) of Directive 95/46, and, as regards the obligations in case of a refusal, Article 18(1) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. It integrates also the right to have the processing marked in certain cases, replacing the ambiguous terminology "blocking", used by Article 12(b) of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 18(1) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 17 on the rectification, erasure and restriction of processing in judicial proceedings provides clarification based on Article 4(4) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 18 describes the responsibility of the controller to comply with this Directive and to ensure compliance, including the adoption of policies and mechanisms for ensuring compliance.

Article 19 sets out that the Member States must ensure the compliance of the controller with the obligations arising from the principles of data protection by design and by default.

Article 20 on joint controllers clarifies the status of joint controllers as regards their internal relationship.

Article 21 clarifies the position and obligation of processors, following partly Article 17(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, and adding new elements, including that a processor that processes data beyond the controller's instructions is to be considered a co-controller.

Article 22 on processing under the authority of the controller and processor follows Article 16 of Directive 95/46/EC.
Article 23 introduces the obligation for controllers and processors to maintain documentation of all processing systems and procedures under their responsibility.

Article 24 concerns the keeping of records, in line with Article 10(1) of Framework Decision 2008/977, whilst providing further clarifications.

Article 25 clarifies the obligations of the controller and the processor regarding co-operation with the supervisory authority.

Article 26 concerns the cases where consultation with the supervisory authority is mandatory prior to the processing, based on Article 23 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 27 on the security of processing is based on the current Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46 on the security of processing, and Article 22 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, extending the related obligations to processors, irrespective of their contract with the
controller.

Articles 28 and 29 introduce an obligation to notify personal data breaches, inspired by the personal data breach notification in Article 4(3) of the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, clarifying and separating the obligations to notify the supervisory authority (Article 28) and to communicate, in qualified circumstances, to the data subject (Article 29). Article 29 also provides for exemptions by referring to Article 11(4).

Article 30 introduces an obligation for the controller to appoint a mandatory data protection officer who should fulfil the tasks listed in Article 32. Where several competent authorities are acting under the supervision of a central authority, functioning as controller, at least this central authority should designate such a data protection officer. Article 18(2) of Directive
95/46/EC provided the possibility for Member States to introduce such requirement as a surrogate to the general notification requirement of that Directive.

Article 31 sets out the standing of the data protection officer.

Article 32 provides the tasks of the data protection officer.

Article 33 sets out the general principles for data transfers to third countries or international organisations in the area of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, including onward transfers. It clarifies that transfers to third countries may take place only if the transfer is necessary for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal
offences or the execution of criminal penalties.

Article 34 lays down that transfers to a third country may take place in relation to which the Commission has adopted an adequacy decision under Regulation …./../201X or specifically in the area of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, or, in the absence of such decisions, where appropriate safeguards are in place. As long as adequacy decisions do not exist, the Directive ensures that transfers can continue to take place on the basis of appropriate safeguards and derogations. It furthermore sets out the criteria for the Commission’s assessment of an adequate or not adequate level of protection, and expressly includes the rule of law, judicial redress and independent supervision. The article also provides for the possibility for the Commission to assess the level of protection afforded by a territory or a processing sector within a third country. It introduces that a general adequacy
decision adopted, following the procedures under Article 38 of the General Data Protection Regulation, shall be applicable within the scope of this Directive. Alternatively an adequacy decision can be adopted by the Commission exclusively for the purposes of this Directive.

Article 35 defines the appropriate safeguards needed prior to international transfers, in the absence of a Commission adequacy decision. These safeguards may be adduced by a legally binding instrument such as an international agreement. Alternatively, the data controller may on the basis of an assessment of the circumstances surrounding the transfer conclude that they
exist.

Article 36 spells out the derogations for data transfer based on Article 26 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 13 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 37 obliges Member States to provide that the controller informs the recipient of any processing restrictions and takes all reasonable steps to ensure that these restrictions are met by recipients of the personal data in the third country or international organisation.

Article 38 explicitly provides for international co-operation mechanisms for the protection of personal data between the Commission and the supervisory authorities of third countries, in particular those considered offering an adequate level of protection, taking into account the OECD’s Recommendation on Cross-border Co-operation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy of 12 June 2007.

Article 39 obliges Member States to establish supervisory authorities, following Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 25 Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, enlarging the mission of these authorities to contribute to the consistent application of the Directive
throughout the Union, which may be the supervisory authority established under the General Data Protection Regulation.

Article 40 clarifies the conditions for the independence of supervisory authorities, implementing case law of the Court of Justice of the EU29, inspired also by Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 45/200130.

Article 41 provides general conditions for the members of the supervisory authority, implementing the relevant case law31, inspired also by Article 42(2)-(6) of Regulation (EC) 45/2001.

Article 42 sets out rules on the establishment of the supervisory authority, including on conditions for its members, to be provided by the Member States by law.

Article 43 on professional secrecy of the members and staff of the supervisory authority follows Article 28(7) of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 25(4) Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 44 sets out the competence of the supervisory authorities, based on Article 28(6) of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 25(1) Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. Courts, when acting in their judicial authority, are exempted from the monitoring by the supervisory
authority, but not from the application of the substantive rules on data protection.

Article 45 provides the obligation of Member States to provide for the duties of the supervisory authority, including hearing and investigating complaints and promoting the awareness of the public on risk, rules, safeguards and rights. A particular duty of the
supervisory authorities in the context of this Directive is, where direct access is refused or restricted, to exercise the right of access on behalf of data subjects and to check the lawfulness of the data processing.

Article 46 provides the powers of the supervisory authority, based on Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC, Article 25(2) and (3) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.Article 47 obliges the supervisory authorities to draw up annual activity reports, based on Article 28(5) of Directive 95/46/EC.

Article 48 introduces rules on mandatory mutual assistance whereas Article 28 (6)2 of Directive 95/46/EC provided simply a general obligation to co-operate, without specifying further.

Article 49 provides that the European Data Protection Advisory Board, established by the General Data Protection Regulation, exercises its tasks also in relation to processing activities within the scope of this Directive. In order to provide complementary support, the
Commission will seek the advice of representatives of authorities competent for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal penalties of the Member States, as well as representatives of Europol and Eurojust, by means of an expert group on the
law-enforcement related aspects of data protection.

Article 50 provides the right of any data subject to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, based on Article 28(4) of Directive 95/46/EC, and relates to any infringement of the Directive in relation to the complainant. It also specifies the bodies, organisations or associations which may lodge a complaint on behalf of the data subject and also in case of a personal data breach independently of a data subject's complaint.

Article 51 concerns the right to a judicial remedy against a supervisory authority. It builds on the general provision of Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC and provides specifically that the data subject may launch a court action for obliging the supervisory authority to act on a complaint.
Article 52 concerns the right to a judicial remedy against a controller or processor, based on Article 22 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 20 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

Article 53 introduces common rules for court proceedings, including the rights of bodies, organisations or associations to represent data subjects before the courts, and the right of supervisory authorities to engage in legal proceedings. The obligation of Member States to ensure rapid court actions is inspired by Article 18(1) of the e-Commerce Directive
2000/31/EC.

Article 54 obliges Member States to provide for the right to compensation. It builds on Article 23 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 19(1) of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, extends this right on damages caused by processors and clarifies the liability of co-controllers and coprocessors.

Article 55 obliges Member States to lay down rules on penalties, to sanction infringements of the Directive, and to ensure their implementation.

Article 56 contains standard provisions for the exercise of delegations in line with Article 290 TFEU. This allows the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt nonlegislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act (quasi-legislative acts).

Article 57 contains the provision for the Committee procedure needed for conferring implementing powers on the Commission in cases where, in accordance with Article 291 TFEU, uniform conditions for implementing legally binding acts of the Union are needed.
The examination procedure applies.

FREE, ONLINE COURSE ON DIGITAL LAW PRACTICE

Posted Wed, 01/25/2012 - by Austin Groothuis

Because of technological, economic, and market pressures, the way we practice law is rapidly evolving. Law students, are you prepared for these changes in law practice? Law faculty, are you preparing your students? CALI is offering a FREE nine-week online course on Topics in Digital Law Practice to help address these issues starting Friday, February 10, 2012 at 2pm ET.

Register here.


About the Course
This course is designed to provide an overview of the changes that are occurring in the practice of law today, especially with respect to technology. It will introduce law students for real-world situations that they will encounter in the job market and point law professors to new avenues to cover in their courses.

The course will run for one hour a week for nine weeks and will feature a different guest speaker each week. Each class will be delivered via webcast and will have a 30 minute lecture presentation followed by a question & answer period and an online, interactive homework assignment for all course students to complete. There will be no formal assessment like midterms or a final exam.

The audience for this seminar is primarily law students and law faculty who will be given priority. Anyone else can join the course for one or all of the sessions. The presentations will be recorded and posted to the course blog.

The course is free, but you must register.

See in more detail the CALI website

Παρέμβαση στο ΣτΕ υπέρ του νόμου για τα ΑΕΙ

Παρέμβαση υπέρ της συνταγματικότητας του νέου νόμου για τα ΑΕΙ έκαναν στο Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας έξι καθηγητές της νομικής (οι κ. Αλιβιζάτος, Δρόσος, Τασόπουλος, Τσακυράκης, Μανιτάκης, Σταθόπουλος)

Οι «6» παρενέβησαν στο ανώτατο δικαστήριο υπέρ του κύρους των υπουργικών αποφάσεων που εξεδόθησαν κατ' εφαρμογήν του νέου νόμου πλαισίου για τα ΑΕΙ και κατά των οποίων έχουν προσφύγει με αίτηση ακυρώσεως 24 ΑΕΙ και 41 μέλη των πρυτανικών συμβουλίων τους.

Οι καθηγητές της Νομικής τονίζουν, ότι κάθε νόμος με τον οποίο κάποιος διαφωνεί δεν είναι απαραιτήτως αντισυνταγματικός. Η εκδίκαση της προσφυγής έχε οριστεί για τις 3 Φεβρουαρίου.

Πηγή: Καθημερινή 25/01/2012

Η μεταβολή της βάσης της αγωγής στην πολιτική δίκη Άρθρο 224 ΚΠολΔ

Συγγραφέας: Άνθιμος Μ. Απόστολος

Η έννοια της μεταβολής της βάσης της αγωγής αποτελεί ένα από τα πλέον δυσχερή προβλήματα της πολιτικής δίκης, το οποίο απασχολεί ισότιμα ερευνητές, δικαστές, και δικηγόρους. Αδιάψευστος μάρτυρας η ογκώδης νομολογία των δικαστηρίων μας, που αυξάνεται αδιάκοπα.

Μέχρι σήμερα δεν είχε επιχειρηθεί μονογραφική προσέγγιση της θεματικής. Η παρούσα έκδοση, η οποία συνεκτίμησε και συμπεριλαμβάνει τις αλλαγές που επήλθαν με τον ν. 3994/2011, ανατέμνει τη νομοτυπική μορφή της 224 ΚΠολΔ, καταγράφοντας αναλυτικά και με πλήρη νομολογιακή τεκμηρίωση τις ανεπίτρεπτες και επιτρεπτές μορφές μεταβολής: Στην πρώτη κατηγορία κατατάσσει την αντικατάσταση της αρχικής και την προσθήκη νέας ιστορικής βάσης, καθώς και την απόπειρα συμπλήρωσης αόριστης αγωγής, ενώ στη δεύτερη τις εκφάνσεις της συμπλήρωσης, διευκρίνισης, και διόρθωσης του εισαγωγικού δικογράφου, με διαρκείς αναφορές σε περιπτωσιολογία, χρήσιμη για κάθε νομικό της πράξης, που πολλές φορές πασχίζει να διασώσει την τελευταία στιγμή το δικόγραφό του. Επιπρόσθετα, ειδική ανάλυση λαμβάνει χώρα ως προς το συναφές ζήτημα της μεταβολής στοιχείων που άπτονται των διαδικαστικών προϋποθέσεων της δίκης (με έμφαση στην ενεργητική & παθητική νομιμοποίηση, και το έννομο συμφέρον), καθώς και στη σχέση της 224 ΚΠολΔ προς τις συναφείς διατάξεις των άρθρων 236, 227 & 254 ΚΠολΔ.

Παράλληλα, η μελέτη καταγράφει για πρώτη φορά όλες τις πτυχές του ζητήματος, παρουσιάζει δηλαδή συστηματικά την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 224 ΚΠολΔ σε όλες τις εκφάνσεις της πολιτικής δίκης. Ειδικότερα, η μεταβολή της βάσης εξετάζεται όχι μόνο σε σχέση με το κλασσικό εισαγωγικό ένδικο βοήθημα της αγωγής κατά την τακτική διαδικασία, αλλά στο σύνολο των υφιστάμενων ενδίκων βοηθημάτων και μέσων, δηλαδή, για την παρέμβαση, την προσεπίκληση και ανακοίνωση, την ανακοπή σε όλες τις νοητές της εκδοχές, την αίτηση ασφαλιστικών μέτρων, τη διαδικασία της εκούσιας δικαιοδοσίας, τις ειδικές διαδικασίες (με έμφαση στις οικογενειακές, μισθωτικές και εργατικές διαφορές), την ανταγωγή, την αίτηση έκδοσης διαταγής πληρωμής, την ανακοπή ερημοδικίας, την έφεση, την αναψηλάφηση, και την αναίρεση. Παράλληλα, λαμβάνονται υπόψη, ερευνώνται και αποσαφηνίζονται οι διαδικαστικές διαφορές κατά την εκδίκαση στα πρωτοβάθμια δικαστήρια , και η σημασία τους ως προς το εξεταστέο ζήτημα της μεταβολής της βάσης, και τους παραδεκτούς τρόπους επιστράτευσης της 224 εδ. β' ΚΠολΔ.

Πρόκειται για βιβλίο απόλυτα πρακτικό, ευσύνοπτο, με πλήρη νομολογιακή και βιβλιογραφική κάλυψη μέχρι τα τέλη του 2011, ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμο για δικαστικούς λειτουργούς των πολιτικών δικαστηρίων και μαχόμενους δικηγόρους.

BILETA ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2012 - CALL FOR PAPERS

29 - 30 MARCH, NORTHUMBRIA LAW SCHOOL
'Too many laws, too few examples’
The 27th Annual BILETA Conference will be hosted by Northumbria Law School on 29th
- 30th March 2012.

The conference theme is taken from the words of the French revolutionary, Louis Antoine Léon de SaintJust. They go to the heart of a long debate about regulation – how best to regulate human activities, and inspire good conduct. Saint-Just was in no doubt: he states the case in words that echo a complex debate about the nature of regulation in human affairs that stretches back over two millennia, and which is central to the technological issues of the twenty-first century.

Participants are invited to the BILETA 2012 Conference (law.unn.ac.uk/bileta) to enter the debate with reference to law, technology and legal education. Do too many laws stifle human aspiration and creativity? Or do we have the wrong laws? Is legal regulation the only way to achieve justice in our technological societies? Are our lives happier because we have ever more laws governing our use of technology? In relation to legal education, regulators internationally themselves are opening debate on their regulatory regimes – how best can technology be regulated for educational and ethical purposes in learning Justice?

Conference papers, or abstracts (approximately 300 words), should be submitted by the deadline of 10th January 2012. All submissions will be reviewed by Stream Chairs and presenters will be notified of Chairs decisions by 14th February 2012.

Key areas for streams include:
• Legal education, regulation and technology-enhanced learning
• Regulation of ISPs
• E-commerce and e-governance
• Internet censorship and surveillance
• Computer and internet crime
• ICANN and domain names
• Intellectual property
• Privacy
• Internet access and human rights
• Social networking
Ideas for further streams and expressions of interest in convening a stream are very welcome. Please
email your submission (full paper or abstract) or expression of interest to convene a stream by 10th
January 2012 to: Abhilash Nair, abhilash.nair@northumbria.ac.uk

Η χρήση υπηρεσιών κοινωνικής δικτύωσης από δικηγόρους

ΣΥΝΗΓΟΡΟΣ 2011 (88)

Book Review: Copyright Enforcement and the Internet

Copyright Enforcement and the Internet
Edited by: Irini Stamatoudi
Imprint: Kluwer Law International 2010
ISBN: 9789041133465
Format: Hardcover

Google Preview

Copyright infringements are taking place on a large scale on the Internet and in more particular, in platforms such as P2P networks. Due to the anarchic structure of the Internet, the effort of right holders of IP rights and national governments to enforce copyright faces many difficulties. Enforcement mechanisms such as the "three strikes system" are put in place which are heavily criticised. Hence, many remain pessimistic about the future of copyright protection.

This book, edited by I. Stamatoudi, comprises the contributions of many experts addressing issues of copyright enforcement on the Internet. Most of the existing European Union and international policies are considered in some depth, and the authors also discuss a variety of national laws and initiatives, technical measures, and the soft law and hard law models that have been proposed.

Some of the issues discussed in this book are the following: Directive 2004/48, ACTA, policies of international organisations, the role of ISPs, the graduated response in France (the 'HADOPI' law), Data protection issues, etc.

Book Review: Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law

Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law, Edited by Alain Strowel, Professor, Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Brussels and University of Liège, Avocat, Belgium

Edward Elgar
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA


In this book prominent academics and specialised practitioners from the US and the EU offer a comprehensive review on the issue of secondary liability for copyright infringement, particularly P2P file sharing and online infringements. Some contributions analyse the relevant case law on third-party liability and their implications for the future. The decisions on P2P also involve issues of international law and data protection. Other more forward-looking contributions provide original insight into the future shape of copyright in the online world, for instance whether it could or even should evolve towards a compensation system. By combining these avenues, the book will be of particular interest to practitioners and legal scholars.


It follows an abstract from the Introduction:

Every book has a history. This book originates in a 2005 Brussels conference discussing the impact of peer to-peer technology on the future of copyright law. Peer-to-peer technology, as further explained below, allows people to exchange information over the Internet via many equal or ‘peer’ machines linked across a network, rather than on a central server. From a copyright point of view, the main controversy surrounding peer-to-peer networks is whether providers of peer-to-peer technology and services can be liable when users infringe copyright through their networks. This issue has been hotly debated in legal circles and in the press, especially in 2005, when the US Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in the controversial case MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster Ltd.3 In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the two popular file-sharing networks, Grokster and Streamcast (dba Morpheus), were indeed liable for ‘actively inducing’ the end-users’ acts of infringement. As will be explained, the liability for inducement is one form of secondary liability for copyright infringement.

Peer-to-peer (or P2P) file sharing and secondary liability are the central themes in this collection of essays on copyright. Both topics are closely linked. ‘Secondary’ (or derived) liability presupposes a primary infringer. In peer-topeer networks, the primary infringers, those who upload copyrighted files without authorization, are numerous and difficult to reach, and going after them poses many legal and practical issues. Copyright owners thus prefer to direct their legal actions against those who allow or promote direct infringements, for instance, those who operate the peer-to-peer networks or develop the technical means (in particular the software) to make primary infringements online possible. The development of peer-to-peer networks over the Internet has, therefore, brought the issue of secondary liability to the forefront.

AMAZON

Δημόσια Διαβούλευση επί του «Πλαισίου Παροχής Υπηρεσιών Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης»

Με πρωτοβουλία του Υπουργείου Διοικητικής Μεταρρύθμισης και Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης, διενεργείται δημόσια διαβούλευση για το Πλαίσιο Παροχής Υπηρεσιών Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης προκειμένου στη συνέχεια να εκδοθεί σχετική Υπουργική Απόφαση για την Κύρωση Πλαισίου Παροχής Υπηρεσιών Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης.

Στόχος της διαβούλευσης είναι η εξεύρεση τρόπων για την απλούστευση των διαδικασιών, τη μείωση του διοικητικού βάρους, την εξάλειψη σημαντικού μέρους της υπάρχουσας γραφειοκρατίας, τον αποτελεσματικότερο έλεγχο των πιστοποιητικών και την ταχύτερη, αποδοτικότερη επικοινωνία των δημοσίων φορέων μεταξύ τους και γενικότερα τον εκσυγχρονισμό του κράτους σχετικά με την παροχή ηλεκτρονικών υπηρεσιών από τους φορείς προς κάθε ενδιαφερόμενο (πολίτη – government to citizen, επιχείρηση – government to business και άλλο δημόσιο φορέα-government to government).

Η δημόσια διαβούλευση θα ολοκληρωθεί την Δευτέρα 23 Ιανουαρίου 2012.

Περισσότερες πληροφορίες, υποστηρικτικό υλικό και διαδικασία συμμετοχής στη διαβούλευση είναι διαθέσιμες στη σχετική σελίδα του Υπουργείου Διοικητικής Μεταρρύθμισης και Ηλεκτρονικής Διακυβέρνησης.



[Εξωτ. σύνδεσμος: http://www.opengov.gr/minreform/?p=129 ]

Tο πρόγραμμα Open Court

Ένα νέο, πιλοτικό πρόγραμμα, το πρόγραμμα "Ανοικτό Δικαστήριο" (Open Court) στις ΗΠΑ εγκαινιάζει μια νέα πρακτική που φέρνει τον πολίτη εγγύτερα προς τη δικαιοσύνη και ενισχύει την ανεξαρτησία της. Ειδικότερα, έχοντας ως πλατφόρμα επικοινωνίας την ιστοσελίδα opencourt.us , με την υποστήριξη του Ιδρύματος Knight News, και σε συνεργασία με το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο της Μασαχουσέτης και το Cyberlaw Clinic of Harvard Law School, βιντεοσκοπούνται και προβάλλονται σε ανοικτή μετάδοση μέσω του Διαδικτύου οι συνεδριάσεις του Δικαστηρίου του Κουίνσι, ενώ παράλληλη παρέχεται πρόσβαση σε ασύρματο δίκτυο για τους δημοσιογράφους και κατόχους ιστολογίων που επιθυμούν να μεταδίδουν νέα από τα δικαστήρια στα νέα μέσα.

Η ζωντανή βιντεοσκόπηση των συνεδριάσεων των δικαστηρίων γίνεται σύμφωνα με τους δικονομικούς κανόνες της Μασαχουσέτης και μπορεί να απαγορεύεται σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις. Ειδικότερα, αυτή λαμβάνει χώρα όταν είναι παρών ένας δικαστής, ο οποίος ελέγχει τη διαδικασία και μπορεί να ορίσει τη διακοπή της βιντεοσκόπησης.

Στο τέλος της ημέρας, οι καταγραφές αρχειοθετούνται και δημοσιεύονται στο αρχείο της ιστοσελίδας.

Το πρόγραμμα αυτό έχει ως σκοπό να αναδείξει πειραματικά την επίδραση των νέων τεχνολογιών στην απονομή της δικαιοσύνης, με την πεποίθηση ότι η διαφάνεια στην δικαστική πρακτική συμβάλλει στην ενίσχυση της δημοκρατίας.

Για ζωντανή αναμετάδοση βλ. εδώ

Διατήρηση δεδομένων ηλεκτρονικών επικοινωνιών

Προβλήματα στην εφαρμογή της οδηγίας 2006/24 για τη διατήρηση δεδομένων που παράγονται ή υποβάλλονται σε επεξεργασία σε συνάρτηση με την παροχή διαθεσίμων στο κοινό υπηρεσιών ηλεκτρονικών επικοινωνιών ή δημοσίων δικτύων επικοινωνιών" διαφαίνονται, σύμφωνα με Έκθεση της Επιτροπής της ΕΕ (15-12-2011), καθώς μόνο 7 από τα 27 κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ ενσωμάτωσαν μέχρις στιγμής την οδηγία στο εσωτερικό τους δίκαιο.

Στην έκθεση επισημαίνεται η κοινή αντίληψη ότι η αξία της διατήρησης δεδομένων είναι μικρή και η ότι υφίσταται νομική ανασφάλεια ως προς τις κατηγορίες δεδομένων που υπόκεινται σε διατήρηση, σε σχέση με τη διαθεσιμότητα των δεδομένων, ενώ δεν υπάρχει σύστημα επιτήρησης επί των διατηρούμενων δεδομένων κοκ. Ακόμα, στην Έκθεση προβάλλεται η ανάγκη εξέτασης πιθανών λύσεων για την αναθεώρηση της οδηγίας.

Privacy issues of smartphones

CNIL, the French Data Protection Authority published on 13th December 2011 the results of a study concerning privacy issues of smartphones. It is entitled: "smartphone and private life: a friend who wishes you well?"
Smart mobile phones such as iPhone, Androied, Windows Phone, Blackberry, are now in the hands of 17 millions of French people and thus, it is appropriate to study their uses and privacy implications. The Study Smartphone et viee privee is published in: http://www.cnil.fr/

Basically, the CNIL ackonwledges that the smartphone is a universal terminal that can be adapted to the uses of every person. Some use it to communicate, while others to store photos, videos, etc., but 7 out of 10 persons never loose touch from it. There is however limited protection of data stored in smartphones and no transparency. Geolocalisation poses also many problems.

Subsequently, the CNIL lays down 10 security tips:

1. Do not store confidential information (PINs, access codes, bank account ...) in your smartphone (theft, hacking, identity theft ...).
2. Do not disable the PIN code and also, change the default PIN. Choose a complicated code. Not your birthday!
3. Set up an autolock period of the phone. In addition to the PIN, it can inactivate (lock) the phone after a while. This prevents the consultation of the information in the phone if lost or stolen.
4. Enable encryption if possible backup of the phone. For this, use the settings of the platform with which you connect the phone. This action will ensure that no one will be able to use your data without the password you set.
5. Install an antivirus when possible.
6. Note the number "IMEI" to block the phone if lost or stolen.
7. Do not download application from unknown sources. Prefer official platforms.
8. Check on what data on your smartphone application that you install will have access.
9. Read the terms and conditions of service before installing it. The views of other users may also be useful!
10. Adjust the settings in the phone or in the location-based applications (Twitter, Foursquare, Plyce ...) to always control when and by whom you want to be geolocated. Turn off the GPS or WiFi when you do not use more than one location-based application.

EU DIRECTIVE Proposal on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

On 29.3.2010 the Commission presented a proposal for a new law on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography [COM(2010)94 final]. The proposed Directive aims to build a more coherent framework to increase effectiveness in preventing and combating this type of crime and protecting the victims. This proposalis intended to repeal the Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. The proposal contains provisions aimed at extending the criminalisation of child sexual abuse and exploitation and child pornography.

The most important provisions of the Directive are the following:

Art. 3 Offences concerning sexual abuse

2. Causing, for sexual purposes, a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent
under national law to witness sexual abuse or sexual activities, even without having to participate, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
3. Engaging in sexual activities with a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent under national law shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
4. Engaging in sexual activities with a child, where:
(i) abuse is made of a recognised position of trust, authority or influence over the child shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years; or
(ii) abuse is made of a particularly vulnerable situation of the child, notably because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years; or
(iii) use is made of coercion, force or threats shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.
5. Coercing a child into sexual activities with a third party shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.

Art. 4 Offences concerning sexual exploitation
2. Causing a child to participate in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
3. Profiting from or otherwise exploiting a child participating in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
4. Knowingly attending pornographic performances involving the participation of children shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
5. Recruiting a child to participate in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
6. Causing a child to participate in child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
7. Profiting from or otherwise exploiting a child participating in child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years
8. Engaging in sexual activities with a child, where recourse is made to child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.
9. Coercing a child to participate in pornographic performances shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years.
10. Recruiting a child to participate in child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least eight years.
11. Coercing a child into child prostitution shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.

Art. 5 Offences concerning child pornography
2. Acquisition or possession of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least one year.
3. Knowingly obtaining access, by means of information and communication technology, to child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least one year.
4. Distribution, dissemination or transmission of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
5. Offering, supplying or making available child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.
6. Production of child pornography shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.

Art. 6 Solicitation of children for sexual purposes
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:
The proposal, by means of information and communication technology, by an adult to meet a child who has not reached the age of sexual consent under national law, for the purpose of committing any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 (3) and Article 5 (6), where this proposal has been followed by material acts leading to such a meeting, shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years.

Art. 8 Consensual sexual activities between peers
The provisions of Article 3 (2), with regard to witnessing sexual activities, and (3); Article 4 (2) and (4) and Article 5 do not govern consensual sexual activities between children or involving persons who are close in age and degree of psychological and physical development or maturity, insofar as the acts did not involve any abuse.

Art.9 Aggravating circumstances
1. In so far as the following circumstances do not already form part of the constituent elements of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7, they shall be considered as aggravating circumstances for the purposes of this Directive:
(a) the child has not reached the age of sexual consent under national law;
(b) the offence was committed against a child in a particularly vulnerable situation, notably because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence;
(c) the offence was committed by a member of the family, a person cohabiting with the child or a person having abused their authority;
(d) the offence was committed by several people acting together;
(e) the offences are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation within the meaning of Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA10;
(f) the perpetrator has previously been convicted of offences of the same nature.
(g) the offence endangered the life of the child;
(h) the offence involved serious violence or caused serious harm to the child.

Art. 11 Liability of legal persons
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons may be held liable for any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person.

Art. 16 Jurisdiction and coordination of prosecution
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the
offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 where:
(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part within its territory; or
(b) the offender is one of its nationals or has a habitual residence in its territory; or
(c) the offence is committed against one of its nationals or a person who has a habitual residence in its territory; or
(d) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in the territory of that Member State.


Art. 18 Assistance and support to victims
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that assistance and support are provided to victims before, during and for an appropriate time after criminal proceedings.


Art. 19 Protection of child victims in criminal investigations and proceedings
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations and proceedings, judicial authorities appoint a special representative for the child victim where, by national law, the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from representing the child as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim, or where the child is unaccompanied or separated from the family.

Art. 21 Blocking access to websites containing child pornography

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to obtain the blocking of access by Internet users in their territory to Internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography. The blocking of access shall be subject to adequate safeguards, in particular to ensure that the blocking is limited to what is necessary, that users are informed of the reason for the blocking and that content providers, as far as possible, are informed of the possibility of challenging it.
2. Without prejudice to the above, Member States shall take the necessary measures to obtain the removal of internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography.

EU Study: Towards a New EU Legal Framework for Data Protection and Privacy

The EU Directorare General for Internal Policies recently published a Study on a New EU Legal Framework for Data Protection and Privacy, which was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

This study addresses the new challenges stemming from data processing policies and systems falling in the scope of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. It identifies a set of common basic principles and standards for the genuine assurance of data protection in all the phases of EU policymaking and for the effective implementation of this fundamental right.
The study puts forward a set of recommendations to guide the European Parliament’s role and legislative inputs into the upcoming revision of the EU legal framework on data protection, which is expected to be launched by the end of 2011.

The authors of the study are:
Prof. Didier Bigo (Centre d’Etudes sur les Conflits, C&C)
Dr Sergio Carrera (Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS)
Ms Gloria González Fuster (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB)
Prof Elspeth Guild (CEPS and Radboud University of Nijmegen)
Prof. Paul de Hert (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB)
Dr Julian Jeandesboz (Centre d’Etudes sur les Conflits, C&C)
Dr Vagelis Papakonstantinou (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB)